2.4 violation?

[gs]

Does the following example violate rule #2.4:

Code:

typedef enum A {
    b
} A;

A c() {
    return b;
}

[misra-c]

Your example does violate rule 2.4, providing typedef “A” is always used in the rest of the translation unit and never “enum A”. A compliant typedef declaration could be written as

Code:

typedef enum {
        b
     } A;

This issue is similar to the example of record_t in the Example section for rule 2.4.